Both test methods provide for affixing a 5’ x 5’ dome-like chamber to the roof’s surface and applying a defined negative (uplift) pressure inside the chamber to the roof system's exterior-side surface using a vacuum pump, like in the photo below.

An example of a test chamber used for negative-pressure uplift testing

However, ASTM E907 and FM 1-52 differ notably in their test cycles and maximum test pressures for determining roof system deflections and whether a roof system passes or is “suspect”.

Using ASTM E907, a roof system is “suspect” if the deflection measured during the test is 25 mm (about 1 inch) or greater.

Using FM 1-52, a roof system is “suspect” if the measured deflection is between ¼ of an inch and 15/16 of an inch, depending on the maximum test pressure; 1 inch where a thin cover board is used; or 2 inches where a thin cover board or flexible, mechanically attached insulation is used.

Test results' reliability

The reliability of the results derived from ASTM E907 and FM 1-52 is a concern, especially when the tests are used for quality assurance purposes. A note in ASTM E907 acknowledges its test viability.
"Deflection due to negative pressure will potentially vary at different locations because of varying stiffness of the roof system assembly. Stiffness of a roof system assembly, including the deck, is influenced by the location of mechanical fasteners, thickness of insulation, stiffness of deck, and by the type, proximity, and rigidity of connections between the deck and framing system."

For example, when testing an adhered roof system over a steel roof deck, placement of the test chamber relative to the deck supports (bar joists) can have a significant effect on the test results. If positioned between deck supports, the test chamber's deflection gauge will measure roof assembly deflection at the deck's midspan, which is the point of maximum deck deflection. Also, in many instances, field-uplift testing results in steel roof deck overstress and deck deflections far in excess of design values, which can result in roof system failure. These situations can result in false “suspect” determinations of a roof system.
Industry position/recommendations
Because of the known variability in test results using ASTM E907 and FM 1-52 and the lack of correlation between laboratory uplift-resistance testing and field-uplift testing, the roofing industry considers field-uplift testing to be inappropriate for use as a post-installation quality-assurance measure for membrane roof systems.
Conclusion
FM 1-52 is an FM Global-promulgated evaluation method and not a recognized industry-consensus test standard. The scope of FM 1-52 indicates that it’s only intended to confirm acceptable wind-uplift resistance on completed roof systems in hurricane-prone regions, where a partial blow-off has occurred, or where inferior roof system construction is suspected or known to be present.

FM 1-52 was originally published by FM Global in October 1970. The negative-pressure uplift test was added in August 1980 and has been revised several times. The current edition is dated July 2012 and includes an option for "visual construction observation (VCO)" as an alternative to negative-pressure uplift testing. VCO provides for full-time, third-party monitoring to verify roof system installation is in accordance with contract documents.

All single-ply membranes make for great roofing systems, but they can be used for a variety of other purposes too. EPDM, TPO, and PVC can be used in the lining of underground tunnels and can serve as liners for water retention ponds, irrigation canals, and other water containment systems.
For years, EPDM membranes were used as pond liners – even before they were utilized for commercial roofing. You could see EPDM pond liners being used in agriculture for irrigation canals and ditches, by municipal water systems for retention ponds and spillways, and even in backyards as small ponds and water features. This is still true today, and EPDM has expanded into additional markets such as tunnel waterproofing.
The number of large underground transportation tunnels used for vehicle traffic or metropolitan railways has certainly increased in the last few decades as traffic and access needs continue to outstrip the supply of existing infrastructure. These tunnels have to keep water out, whether they’re underneath a river or traversing through a mountain, and single-ply membranes meet their waterproofing needs with the same technology used on the roof. Different types of membrane offer specific benefits, from EPDM’s large sheet size to thermoplastics’ (TPO/PVC) seam weldability. Regardless of whether the tunnel is a boring project or a “cut and cover”, lining the tunnel can be accomplished using several different installation methods and can utilize EPDM, TPO, or PVC.
For more information, please consult the links for the products or specifications on the Carlisle SynTec website below.
Tunnels – Conventional Blindside Method Consult the Tunnel Waterproofing System – Conventional Specification and Details on the Carlisle SynTec website.
Tunnels – Cut and Cover Method Consult the Tunnel Waterproofing System – Cut and Cover Specification and Details on the Carlisle SynTec website.
Pond Liners Consult GeoMembrane Page for Pond Liner Products and Brochures on the Carlisle SynTec website.
Contact Craig Tyler at [email protected] with questions.

For years, “going green” initiatives have been popping up in all aspects of our lives. In the construction industry, there are three main programs pushing buildings to be greener: LEED®, Green Globes, and Living Building Challenge (LBC). All three of these programs push for more sustainable buildings, but each takes a different approach to accomplish this goal. In this SpecTopics post, we will look at some of the differences between these three programs.
Put simply, LEED and Green Globes are working toward making buildings more sustainable by improving existing standards, while LBC takes things a step further and promotes buildings that have little to no negative impact on the environment.
Overall Mission
LEED wants to make buildings better for the environment, community, and those who use the building
Green Globes wants to make buildings more environmentally efficient based on commonly valued environmental outcomes
LBC promotes buildings that have a positive environmental impact
Certification Methods/Requirements
LEED
Points-based rating system (100 points possible)
Four levels of certification: Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum
Green Globes
Points-based rating system (1,000 points possible)
Four levels of certification: 1 Globe, 2 Globes, 3 Globes, 4 Globes
LBC
Seven petals (like those of a plant or flower) broken down into 20 imperatives; number of petals/imperatives completed determines award
Three awards are available (based on which path you take)
A Zero Carbon Certification and a Zero Energy Certification are available
Main Points of Focus
LEED Location & Transportation, Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmosphere, Material & Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, Innovation, Regional Priority, and Integrative Process
Green Globes Project Management, Site Energy, Water, Materials & Resources, Emissions, Indoor Environment
LBC Place, Water, Energy, Health & Happiness, Materials, Equity, and Beauty

As designers and architects try to meet green construction or net-zero energy goals, on-site power generation in the form of photovoltaic (PV) arrays is becoming more and more common. Preparing your roof to accept a PV system in the future is also increasingly commonplace.
In general, robust roofs with extended warranties are the best candidates for PV systems. While a normal roof may only experience light foot traffic from the building owner or maintenance personnel a few times a year, a PV installation may need more frequent inspections (i.e. after significant storms or heavy snowfall, monitoring, etc.). So starting out with a thicker membrane, a cover board, and walkway pads are a must.
It’s important that the PV array does not interfere with the roof’s drainage. This may mean some of the array will have to be supported by structural steel tubing or piping in lieu of traditional racking (which may rest on the roof utilizing ballast). It’s important to leave room for roofers to inspect or repair seams and flashings, so it may be necessary to raise the height of the array as not to obstruct roof penetrations.
Always verify the type of PV array system to be installed on your roof and coordinate with your local Carlisle Field Service Representative (FSR) to assess the new or existing roof’s condition prior to beginning any work. Consult the SOLAReady Specification on the Carlisle SynTec website at or contact Craig Tyler with questions.